The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of informed consent and the duty of a doctor to provide adequate information to the patient before performing a medical procedure, as well as the importance of seeking specialized opinions when necessary.

1. The above said cross appeals have been filed by the Complainant and the Opposite parties(OP-1 and 2) under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.12.2013 passed in C.C. No. 7 of 2012 by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the OP 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs together with cost of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant filed an Appeal No. 212 of 2014 for the enhancement of compensation whereas OPs have filed the appeal No.168 of 2014 for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission and dismissal of the complaint.

2. For the convenience, the parties are placed to the respective positions as in the original complaint. The brief facts are drawn from FA No. 212 of 2014. The complainant, Bhagwan L. Moorjani (herein after referred as “the patient”) was suffering from nasal congestion, sleep disturbance during night and watering of eyes. In early 2011, the patient consulted OP 2/Dr. E.C. Vinay Kumar at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad/OP 1. Initial course of broad-spectrum antibiotics was given and OP-2 reviewed the condition of the patient on 2.3.2011, and CT Scan was performed, it was reported as “the extensive destruction of lamina papyracea and that the said lesion was ‘eroding’ through the right medial wall and is abutting and displacing medial rectus.” The patient was finally diagnosed as ‘Sinonasal Polyposis’ with ‘intra orbital extension’. OP-2 advised the patient for ‘Functional-Endoscopic-Sinus-Surgery (FESS)’ to remove the polyposis. OP- 2 had assured that it was common and routine surgical procedure, which usually lasts for 2 to 3 hours. He did not mention anything about the Ocular complications. The patient got admitted on 7.3.2011 and the FESS was performed around 11.20 a.m. on 8.3.2011. After the operation, patient’s wife was informed that, it was fungal infection and surgery was satisfactory.

3. At about 2.00 p.m. the complainant’s wife noticed that, the patient’s right eye was rolled on to one side and he was complaining about loss of vision in his right eye. On inquiry with the doctors, it was informed that, it might be due to ‘tight packing in his nasal cavity which could cause pressure on optic nerve and a temporary loss of vision. Again, at about 4.30 p.m. the patient was taken into the operation theatre for re-exploration. The re-exploration did not reveal any significant findings like hematoma or active bleeding at the site of operation. During the night around 8.00 p.m., OP-2 with other doctors and the Ophthalmologist informed the patient’s wife that, the patient suffered very rare complication of sinus surgery, which has caused loss of vision in the right eye. It could be due to ‘apparent defect secondary to CRAO (Central Retinal Artery Occlusion) ?orbital edema, ?optic neuropathy”. Therefore, OP-2 prescribed high doses of steroid to reduce the edema and for revival of optic nerve. On the 4th day i.e. on 11.3.2011, at 9.30 p.m. the patient was discharged without giving any details of treatment procedure. On 5.4.2011, the patient consulted Dr. Santosh G. Honavar at LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad who diagnosed it as “diffuse sub-conjunctival hemorrhage in the inferior aspect” and “medial rectus palsy and optic neuropathy, following paranasal surgery for allergic fungal sinusitis”. Thereafter, on 12.4.2011, patient sought another opinion from Maa E.N.T. Hospital, Hyderabad, the doctors there after examination informed the complainant that, he would have undergone CT guided debridement surgery, when the fungal infection was close to optic nerve, it could have been avoided paralysis of medial rectus.

4. Therefore, it was alleged that due to negligence of OP-2, complainant had suffered damage to his left eye. The OP-2 and hospital have failed in their duty, had it been informed to the complainant about the risk to the eye